[andygrif]

Blimey, this one's going round in so many circles, I'm feeling dizzy!

Originally Posted by themelon

So presumably these negotiations are still on going, presumably Sky are not wishing to pay for Space on ntl, yet the are willing to pay SES Astra to space to get more customers on their platform............Interesting.........and Anti Competative.

Let's assume you're correct and this about ntl trying to charge Sky for interactive content delivery:

1. It wouldn't be the first time I have heard of ntl overpricing its carraige fees.

2. It is still (compared to watching telly) a niche service, and probably not worth Sky paying for. This is especially true when the platform it would be delivered on is so flaky most people don't bother with it.

3. They don't pay SES Astra for interactive carraige. They pay for bandwidth, the platform (which is used by many people and therefore worthwhile) is owned by Sky.

I would agree that the fact that they have not put the interactive services on cable could be seen to be in the attempt to attract more customers to its own service, and there could be some truth in that, but I would suspect that it has a lot to do with compatability and cost.

Originally Posted by scastle

True, you did appear to be making the point about NTL not communicating. However, that does not necessarily indicate that NTL's network can not handle Sky's interactive parts.

I'm not sure it could handle it to be honest. The Olympics multiscreen rarely worked for me, it crashed the box more often than it worked, and the one time it did work, I couldn't get out of it without pulling the power!

Originally Posted by Tristan

And no, the video is just standard DVB(-S, converted to DVB-C very easily). There would also be an interactive datastream for the Sky box, but this would just be ignored. Someone would need to write a Liberate version of it. On satellite, this is always the job of the broadcaster, so that's another cost that Sky would most likely be unwilling to meet.

I think you're right on this, there would be little point in Sky paying for a service that would probably only end up making itself look bad too (if it crashed as often as the example above). There could be an argument for a return on investment using the red button for voting, but I seriously doubt the numbers of people that would use it in its current state would justify the expense.

Originally Posted by Neil

I actually think it's both, I think Sky want to hold on to it as it gives their product an edge over the cable companies (they developed it, so why not?), & I also think that ntl's network can't handle it (I should say that's what I was told last time I was in ntl Hook)

I think you're right too! IMHO (not through any kind of special knowledge) I really think that ntl got itself a white elephant with the current digital box setup. They didn't put enough thought into it in the first place, and now people can see that it is inferior to both of the other DTV interactive services.

I don't know if this is possible, but for a layman such as I, it would appear sensible for ntl to just become a carraige business and then we could plug a Sky box into the ntl cable. Crazy or not?